Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests

Question

Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests in many of the world's important agricultural areas. Worldwide production of soybeans, an important source of protein for people and livestock alike, was not adversely affected, however. Indeed, last year's soybean crop was actually slightly larger than average. Nevertheless, the weather phenomenon is probably responsible for a recent increase in the world price of soybeans.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the attribution of the increase in soybean prices to the weather phenomenon?

(A) Last year's harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of the weather phenomenon.

(B) Most countries that produce soybeans for export had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year.

(C) The world price of soybeans also rose several years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of similar global weather disturbance.

(D) Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenon improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed.

(E) Prior to last year, soybean prices had been falling for several years.

Soybean Prices

Step 1: Identify the Question

The wording provides the strongest justification for in the question stem indicates that this is either a Strengthen the Argument or an Explain the Discrepancy problem. Read the entire argument to determine which it is.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Last yr: weather → bad harvests

BUT: soybean harvest = larger than avg

BUT: soybean prices ↑

This is an Explain the Discrepancy problem, since it describes a surprising phenomenon that runs counter to what is expected. Bad weather last year affected most crops, but the soybean harvest was actually slightly larger than usual. You would expect, therefore, that soybean prices would be unaffected or decrease. Surprisingly, even though the soybean harvest itself was not diminished, the price of soybeans did increase.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

In a Discrepancy problem, the right answer will explain why the surprising phenomenon occurred. In this case, the right answer will explain why high soybean prices can be blamed on bad weather.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT . The argument describes soybeans as an important source of protein for people and livestock alike. According to this answer choice, anchovies are  another important protein source , and the weather caused a disruption in the anchovy harvest. Since soybeans fill the same role as anchovies, unavailability of anchovies could have caused higher demand for soybeans, which in turn could have driven up the price of soybeans.

(B) This answer choice implies that the soybean harvest was good last year because the countries that produce soybeans had good harvests in general. However, the question asks you specifically to justify the attribution of the increase in soybean prices to the weather phenomenon. The right answer doesn’t need to show why the soybean harvest was good. It only needs to show why the weather was to blame for increased soybean prices.

(C) Without more information on the similarities between the previous situation and the current situation, there’s no way to know whether this justifies blaming the soybean prices on the recent weather disturbance. It’s possible that the two weather disturbances were similar, and the two changes in price happened for the same reason. However, it’s equally possible that the weather disturbances were very different, or that the previous weather disturbance didn’t actually cause the previous increase in prices.

(D) This would be more likely to cause a decrease in soybean prices than an increase. If farmers needed less supplemental livestock feed, they would be less likely to purchase soybeans, and the price might decrease.

(E) This answer choice actually suggests that something other than bad weather was to blame for the increase in prices. If soybean prices were abnormally low prior to the weather disturbance, it’s reasonable to conclude that they increased as part of a normal return to baseline, and that the increase had nothing to do with the weather.

TeamGMATIFY · Accepted Answer

Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests in many of the world's important agricultural areas. Worldwide production of soybeans, an important source of protein for people and livestock alike, was not adversely affected, however. Indeed, last year's soybean crop was was actually slightly larger than average. Nevertheless, the weather phenomenon is probably responsible for a recent increase in the world price of soybeans.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the attribution of the increase in soybean prices to the weather phenomenon?

Type  : Strengthen
  Premise  : The production of soybean was not adversely affected by the weather, still there is an increase in the prices.

Analysis  : The weather could be responsible for an increase in the prices if a substitute of soybean is destroyed.

A . Last year's harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of the weather phenomenon.
 This is what we are looking for. The anchovies are destroyed, because of which the livestock will have to rely on soybean, thus increase the demand and the price

B . Most countries that produce soybeans for export had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year.
 Out of context. This does not tell us anything about the case at hand. 
 
 C . The world price of soybeans also rose several years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of similar global weather disturbance.
 Just because the price of soybean rose several years ago, we cannot say anything about this case.
Also, it cannot be said if the price increase was due to weather conditions or due to something else.

D . Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenon improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed.
 This does not tell us anything about the case at hand and why the prices increased. Even if we consider soybean to be supplemental feed, then a reduce in demand should reduce the prices and not increase them

E . Prior to last year, soybean prices had been falling for several years.
 Out of context. This does not tell us anything about the case at hand and why the prices increased.

Kindly mention difficulty level also, will add difficult level when sufficient answers are received.

samusa · Answer

Situation-The production of soybeans was not affected by the weather disturbances even though the disturbances affected many other crops. Conclusion- The weather disturbance is still responsible for the increase in prices of the soybean crop. Evaluation- We have to provide a justification for the attribution of the increase in soybean prices to the weather phenomenon even though the argument states that the weather did not adversely affect the harvest of the soybean crop. Weather-----> Soybean prices Supply side is not affected by weather so may be the demand side is affected by the weather.Generally,Price rise can have two reasons- 1. Short supply and /or 2. High demand Short supply has been ruled out by the argument.The weather phenomenon did not affect the soybean harvest . POE- A. Last year's harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of the weather phenomenon. We are told that soybean is an important source of protein for people and livestock. This option tells us that the supply of an important source of protein for livestock, anchoives, was in short supply . Bingo, this helps us understand why there is surge in demand .Thus, the reason for price rise is HIGH demand. B. Most countries that produce soybeans for export had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year. This strengthens the fact that the soybean supply was not affected by the weather. It is a kind of restatement of the fact presented in the argument. C. The world price of soybeans also rose several years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of similar global weather disturbance. So what? This option may help us to serve an example onsimilar price rise in the past but does not shed any light on the CAUSE of the price rise. D. Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenon improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed. This option weakens the conclusion. This is exactly opposite of what we are looking for- Less demand. Less demand and good supply donot justify the price rise. E. Prior to last year, soybean prices had been falling for several years. This option is besides the point. We want to know why price rose now . I donot mind Kudos :-D

AryamaDuttaSaikia · Answer

The argument states that the production of Soybean was not adversely affected by change in weather patterns. First of all in "C" the incident was several years ago, second this time we cannot attribute the increase to change in weather patterns. Hence "C" is not an appropriate analogy to the present argument. This is a 700 level question.

iamnobug · Answer

I got this answer correct but didn't look at it from a "Strengthen" perspective but rather from a "Resolve the Paradox" one because I do not see a conclusion on here?

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

The conclusion is that "  is probably responsible for a recent increase in the world price of soybeans."

Check out the  Ultimate CR Guide for Beginners  for tips on how to navigate CR questions without worrying so much about the question type.

I hope that helps!

BillyZ · Answer

Resolve the Paradox Question Review

Each Resolve the Paradox stimulus presents a situation where two ideas or occurrences contradict each other.

Besides the discrepant or contradictory facts, most Resolve the Paradox stimuli contain the following features:

1. No conclusion

2. Language of contradiction

The correct answer will actively resolve the paradox—it will allow both sides to be factually correct and it will either explain how the situation came into being or add a piece of information that shows how the two ideas or occurrences can coexist.

Because you are not seeking to disprove one side of the situation, you must select the answer choice that contains a possible cause of the situation. So, when examining answers, ask yourself if the answer choice could lead to the situation in the stimulus. If so, the answer is correct.  The following types of answers are incorrect :

1. Explains only one side of the paradox

If an answer supports or proves only one side of the paradox, that answer will be incorrect. The correct answer must show how both sides coexist.

2. Similarities and differences

If the stimulus contains a paradox where two items are similar, then an answer choice that explains a difference between the two cannot be correct.

Conversely, if the stimulus contains a paradox where two items are different, then an answer choice that explains why the two are similar cannot be correct.

In short, a similarity cannot explain a difference, and a difference cannot explain a similarity.

When attempting to resolve the problem in the stimulus,  you must address the facts of the situation . Many answers will try to lure you with reasonable solutions that do not quite meet the stated facts. These answers are incorrect.

Soybean Prices

Step 1: Identify the Question

The wording  provides the strongest justification for  in the question stem indicates that this is either a  Strengthen the Argument  or an  Explain the Discrepancy  problem. Read the entire argument to determine which it is.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Last yr: weather → bad harvests

BUT: soybean harvest = larger than avg

BUT: soybean prices ↑

This is an  Explain the Discrepancy  problem, since it describes a surprising phenomenon that runs counter to what is expected. Bad weather last year affected most crops, but the soybean harvest was actually slightly larger than usual. You would expect, therefore, that soybean prices would be unaffected or decrease. Surprisingly, even though the soybean harvest itself was not diminished, the price of soybeans did increase.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

In a Discrepancy problem, the right answer will explain why the surprising phenomenon occurred. In this case, the right answer will explain why high soybean prices can be blamed on bad weather.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT . The argument describes soybeans as an important source of protein for people and livestock alike. According to this answer choice,  anchovies  are  another important protein source , and  the weather caused a disruption in the anchovy harvest . Since soybeans fill the same role as anchovies,  unavailability of anchovies  could have caused higher demand for soybeans, which in turn could have  driven up the price of soybeans .

(B) This answer choice implies that the soybean harvest was good last year because the countries that produce soybeans had good harvests in general. However, the question asks you specifically to justify the attribution of the increase in soybean prices to the weather phenomenon. The right answer doesn’t need to show why the soybean harvest was good. It only needs to show why the weather was to blame for increased soybean prices.

(C) Without more information on the similarities between the previous situation and the current situation, there’s no way to know whether this justifies blaming the soybean prices on the recent weather disturbance. It’s possible that the two weather disturbances were similar, and the two changes in price happened for the same reason. However, it’s equally possible that the weather disturbances were very different, or that the previous weather disturbance didn’t actually cause the previous increase in prices.

(D) This would be more likely to cause a decrease in soybean prices than an increase. If farmers needed less supplemental livestock feed, they would be less likely to purchase soybeans, and the price might decrease.

(E) This answer choice actually suggests that something other than bad weather was to blame for the increase in prices. If soybean prices were abnormally low prior to the weather disturbance, it’s reasonable to conclude that they increased as part of a normal return to baseline, and that the increase had nothing to do with the weather.

bpdulog · Answer

I'm still not quite sure why C is wrong , is it akin to correlation does not imply causation?

GMATNinja · Answer

Exactly! When the price of soybeans rose several years ago, was it because of the similar global weather disturbance? Or was that simply a coincidence? For example, I may have won the lottery twice, and both times I was wearing the same shirt. Does that mean that the shirt was responsible for my winning the lottery? Maybe!

(Note: I have not actually won the lottery twice, but if you have any winning tickets laying around, I'll send you my mailing address.) Anyway, maybe if this same coincidence happened hundreds of times, then it might suggest that the weather disturbance is indeed responsible for the rise in prices. But with only two data points, we don't have enough evidence. (C) certainly doesn't hurt the argument, but it does not provide strong "justification for the attribution of the increase in soybean prices to the weather phenomenon." I hope that helps!

rahul12988 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja

I got the point about (A) but could not eliminate (E).
Prior to last year, soybean prices had been falling for several years. (This choice talks about a situation prior to last year so we can't get a relation between weather disturbance and high prices of soybean for last year)

Regards,
Rahul Singh

GMATNinja · Answer

To answer the question, we need to provide the strongest justification for the argument that last year's weather disturbance is responsible for the recent increase in soybean prices.

You're right in stating that (E) doesn't provide this justification -- the fact that soybean prices have been falling for several years does nothing to link the recent increase in prices to last year's weather disturbance. This is enough to eliminate this answer choice -- if (E) doesn't provide any justification for the argument, we can confidently get rid of it.

I hope that helps!

thecoronafever · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja

I have a legitimate doubt between (A) and (C).

First, Option (A) mentions that some other crop was destroyed because of which soyabean might have remained the choice. In-fact such answer was my pre-thinking but with a slight variation that all other alternatives must have been destroyed. 
In this choice, is it safe to assume that anchovies and soyabean are the only available crops? I mean, then we are not really judging this choice critically while answering CR.

whereas, Option (C) also seems to be a good contender and in-fact better than Option (A) because it is mentioning that the similar raise happened before.

Agreed that (C) might not be strengthening that much but it is strengthening and we have to choose the best among all. But in option (A), we are missing critical information whether there is any other stock apart from anchovies and soyabean.

KarishmaB · Answer

All doubts are legitimate. You are confusing simultaneous occurrence with cause and effect. The conclusion says that the weather phenomenon is responsible for increase in price of soybeans. Option (C) says that many years ago too, the two occurred together. It doesn't say that many years ago, the same weather phenomenon caused an increase in soybean price. Hence, (C) doesn't strengthen our conclusion. Option (A) says that anchovies are an important protein source for livestock. Soybeans are also mentioned as an important protein source for people and livestock. If anchovies disappeared, demand for other important sources of protein would naturally increase. Hence soybean demand would naturally increase. It certainly strengthens the conclusion.

abhimehrotra · Answer

Option B- Countries that produce soybeans for export had above average harvest for a no of crops other than Soybean. Hence either they got average or less than average harvest for soybeans. Even if demand was assumed to be same, the supply of soybean had reduced or wasn't adequate maybe. Thus Demand>Supply -> price increase
In Option A, we too have to assume that the demand was same, hence if supply of anchovies hampered, the price increased.

I am unable to reject Option B with conviction. 
Please help  GMATNinja

GMATNinja · Answer

Take another look at the exact wording of (B):
 
The passage tells us that "last year's soybean crop was actually slightly larger than average." (B) tells us that, in soybean-producing countries, a number of other crops ALSO did well last year.

So, both soybean crops AND other crops did well last year in soybean-producing countries, which is contrary to your understanding of (B).

(B) doesn't give us any reason for the price increase of soybeans -- if anything, it  rules out  a reason for that price increase. If other crops had failed, then perhaps soybeans would be in higher demand to fill those shortages. (B) tells us that a number of other crops did well, so there's no link to higher soybean prices.

Eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

Axelkr00 · Answer

IMO this is a bad question. Option A, if anything, is a weakener and not a strengthener. The conclusion says bad weather (cause) is responsible for higher soya bean prices (effect). It's a classic causal reasoning argument. But what A says is that : it's not the bad weather directly causing the price hikes but it's the destruction of a similar product that is responsible for the effect . Which means that the effect (higher prices) is attributable to an ALTERNATIVE cause and not to the bad weather. I agree C isn't much of strengthener but it's better than A in my view. Sure, it might just be correlation or a coincidence but it also suggests the effect happened immediately after the cause. And as with any GMAT strengthen question, we don't need to PROVE the argument is solid but instead just add a bit more strength into it.

If someone disagrees with my reasoning, please point out where I'm wrong cuz I frequently miss these "Last 2 Verbal Choices Traps".
Thanks!

If someone disagrees with my reasoning, please point out where I'm wrong cuz I frequently miss these "Last 2 Verbal Choices Traps". 
Thanks!

BLTN · Answer

Dear  Axelkr00 
take into consideration the conclusion,

Nevertheless, the weather phenomenon is probably responsible for a recent increase in the world price of soybeans.

So, answer "A" signifies that Weather- > disrupted harvest of anchovies - > increased demand of soybeans 
The reason for the increase of price and demand is that soybeans is also a livestock feed.

(A) Last year's harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of the weather phenomenon.

Option D does not provide any information that can be deduced from the stimulus.

(D) Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenon improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed.

Hope it helps

Axelkr00 · Answer

Sorry, there was a typo in my comment, I meant answer choice C and not D. How is A better than C?

Quantum2022 · Answer

I crossed out A initially because the passage mentioned that the yield last year was actually slightly larger than average. My thinking was: anchovies affected = greater demand for soybean = higher price BUT supply also increased. How can I reconcile this paradox? Is the keyword here “slightly”, which isn’t a strong enough word to impact supply levels?

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB · Answer

The argument tells you that soy production was a bit higher last year. Still, its price increased. You have to resolve this paradox. 
You would have expected the price to stay the same or even decrease a bit if the production increased - provided the demand stayed the same. Why did the price increase then? Because demand would have increased more than the increase in supply. That is what will pull the prices up.

Option (A) tells you that another important crop was badly affected. This means that the dependence on soy would have increased for livestock. And this tells us that the demand did increase quite a lot. Now the increase in prices is justified. Hence option (A) resolves the paradox.

Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards